Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33707
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, R.POORNIMA, JJ
Murugesan – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai – Respondent
W.P(MD) No.2 of 2022 | W.M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C.Ajaykose (passed away)
For the Respondents: Mr.C.Vinayak Standing Counsel
Impugned order passed without notice violates natural justice; set aside and remanded.
Headnote:First Paragraph: The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash it for lack of notice. The impugned notice dated 30.11.2021 was passed without hearing the petitioner. The court found procedural irregularity in issuing the order ex parte. Second Paragraph: The key issue was whether the impugned order was valid without notice to the petitioner. The court held that natural justice requires prior notice before passing adverse orders. Third Paragraph: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. order set aside for lack of notice (Para 2) |
| 2. writ allowed with remand (Para 3) |
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has passed away. Since we intend to remand the matter, we are not adjourning on this ground. The impugned order has been straight away passed without putting the petitioner on notice. Hence, the impugned order stands set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent to pass an order afresh in accordance with the law.
3.With the aforesaid liberty, the Writ Petition is allowed. If the order impugned in the writ petition has already been enforced, our order will not take effect. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
